1. I am still seeing criticism of Russia for the fact that it didn’t “intervene” in events in Ukraine 4 years ago. The criticism always follows the same pattern, whereby no alternative is proposed, or in the event that one is proposed, it’s incredibly naive.

2. The main problem: the criticism is made in the framework of a non-existent scenario, where Ukraine was the ONLY source of tectonic shifts. Of course, if Ukraine was indeed the only source of conflict, a solution would be much easier to point at. But the reality is different.

3. The second problem: Ignoring the fact that the 2014 events in Ukraine are the culmination of 100 years (at least) of previous events. In fact, it is quite possible to say that, roughly speaking, this whole mess was possible to predict already at the time of the UNR (*).

4. The third problem: Thinking that events happen in serial, and not in parallel. I.e., the start of processes in one country mean that processes in other countries stop, either temporarily or indefinitely. There are enough scientific paradigms to expose this hypothesis’ flaws.

5. The fourth problem: A general lack of understanding that Russia today is built on the foundations of the USSR. Attempts to try to separate the two periods as if they aren’t connected contribute to both idealistic and narrow-minded thinking.

6. Now onto the crux of the matter: In 2014 the USA unleashed something in Ukraine that was already formed and energised. Anti-Soviet ideas were already being pushed forward at the time of the awful 90’s thanks to Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The groundwork was being established.

7. In the 90’s in Ukraine you could be harassed for displaying a St. George’s Ribbon in Western Ukraine. Of course, it’s not at all like it is today, where you can legitimately be killed, but the signs were there all the same. And at the same time…

8. …the Ukrainian government was working it’s way towards a multi-vector policy of being both pro-US and pro-Russia. It was Kuchma who cemented this path, which set the country on the way to the events in 2013/2014. By 2013 the US had already established its NGO network.

9. The process of forming this network actually began during WW2 and the initial stage was the formation of UPA/OUN. It’s vital to understand that America already had a tight enough grip around Western Ukraine long before the collapse of the USSR. The task was always…

10. … about injecting it into Russia. Yeltsin tried his best to cut the country up, but in the end the KGB managed to learn where the main hotspots of US activity were, and acted in time to neutralise the most dangerous threats (Putin was involved in this).

11. So for the CIA it was back to the drawing board, because Afghanistan didn’t work, Grozny didn’t work, Georgia didn’t work, colour revolutions in Latvia/Belarus/Armenia didn’t work, so it was time to play the Ukraine card. The US NGO network pulled Galicia…

12. …towards Kiev, and the rest is history. And it is exactly at the time of Yanukovych fleeing and the split in the elite forming that, according to the blamers of Russia, that Moscow had to act. But there is already a problem: the US’ NGO network was about to take Damascus.

13. So, in 2014 Russia is being attacked from two main directions – Syria and Ukraine. According to the blamers, Russia had to enter Ukraine and push the junta back. This is before the start of the ATO. Now let’s imagine that Russia sends just 1 tank over the border…

14. Where does this put Russia in terms of International Law? What does Moscow hope to achieve now, because history shows that starting a war is quite easy, but ending one is very very very difficult? Russia should start killing its own people (Ukrainians are factually Russians)?

15. And it is precisely here that the logical fallacy of the blamers comes to the surface. America entered Ukraine with only 1 purpose: to draw Russia in, and to plunder what it could whilst it waited. USA so badly wants Russia to kill Ukrainians, any Ukrainian will suffice.

16. America wants this so bad that it even helps to provoke Moscow into crossing the border – the ATO. It wants Moscow to destroy the Russian nation with its own hands. No US troops will die, the MIC will make money, America is gasping for just one war crime by Putin.

17. And at this point, what does this make not only Putin, but Russia as a whole? After all, if Russia sends tanks into Ukraine in 2014, the only result would be blood, blood, and more blood. Russia would be committing gross war crimes, and the Hague would be prepping a case.

18. Remember Yugoslavia? Remember how Milošević was baited into conflict? How did it end? Do the blamers not learn anything? So, Putin, knowing exactly what it is that the US wants, used the US’ own energy against it – Minsk Agreements.

19. And now the EU and US are tied to the UNSC, and can’t simply flee and drop Ukraine like an unwanted toy. They must face the nazi Frankenstein project they created, knowing very well that it’s a hot potato. At the same of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, Putin did something else.

20. Russia knew that entering Libya in 2011 would result in defeat. The MoD has supercomputers with terabit memory, and it can compute whole libraries of info in parallel per second. The algorithm said: Wait until later. I.e. Hit the USA in Syria.

21. The success rate was 100%. Do you know why? Because Russia was invited by Assad into Syria legally. And this is the one thing that the USA could never compensate for. And in the blink of an eye, the Swiss army knife was deployed (S-400, Sukhoi, Pantsir S1, T90, Tupolev etc).

22. Remember that all of this is happening AT THE SAME TIME that Russia is supporting the DPR/LPR to the best of its ability without being drawn into Ukraine by America. I.e. Russia hits the heart of the US in Syria, and freezes the parallel front in Ukraine.

23. I won’t go into the topic of Strelkov, but it’s no coincidence that the US State Department likes to praise him, and that his sponsors like to visit the 5th column capital of Russia. His actions didn’t manage to pull Russia into Ukraine, thankfully.

24. Is Russia to blame for 100,000 people dying in Ukraine because of the war in Donbass? No, because if it had “intervened” in the way that the blamers would’ve wanted, the figure could possibly be 1,000,000+. Obama managed to do what no other President could do to Russia…

25. He drove a wedge into the Russian nation, which continues to ooze out blood to this day. Russians are killing Russians in Donbass and all over Ukraine, every day. Every killed UAF or NAF soldier is a victory for the USA.

26. But Russia sending tanks to Kiev isn’t the answer, because then Russia would be behaving just like the US (Iraq, Vietnam, Afghan, Japan etc) – thinking with its fists. This is NOT the Russian way, as the Red Army so very well demonstrated.

27. It is said in sports that offence wins games, but defence wins championships. And in this instance, S-400 + Minsk Agreements = victory. Does Kiev abide by Minsk? No. Was it ever intended by all signatories for it to be otherwise? No.

28. Merkel, Hollande, Putin, & Poroshenko all knew that there would be no ceasefire. In reality, this document was about slowing down processes, cos the West needed events in Syria to develop and catch up with the events in Ukraine to compensate for Debaltsevo/Ilovaisk cauldrons.

29. The very sad fact is that Ukraine was destined to face what it did (via UPA/OUN) in 1950’s in Volyn and Babi Yar. It was destined to resolve this problem, and the US aimed this ticking time bomb in the direction of Moscow. ONLY Ukrainians can resolve these processes.

30. And thats why the US invests so much in Ukrainian media and NGOs – to stop Ukrainians from resolving this problem and changing the 100-year- old course towards doom, initiated by people like Petliura and Skoropadsky.

31. Time will show that Russia’s strategic freezing of the Ukrainian front, neutralising it as a US weapon, encouraging the process of the elites and banderists devouring each other, was the sole solution to the problem of preserving the Russian nation.

32. And this is why Putin insists on Ukraine remaining intact (LPR/DPR remaining inside the structure of Ukraine but with special status): the US NGO network and banderist remnants mustn’t be allowed to enter the RF, and Moscow must show the West how Int Law works.

33. When the criticism of Moscow starts to sound again, cos apparently bombing Kiev and/or “some kind of intervention” had to happen, the next logical question is “can u propose another solution that actually correlates with the realities of International Relations at the time?”

34. Tumbleweed usually ensues. Two golden rules: if you can’t do a better job, it’s better to keep quiet; if you have no ‘skin in the game’, 2+2 suddenly becomes 5. Fin.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are both introduced with articles on the right to self-determination. The principle of self-determination as jus cogens or an indisputable norm in international law nevertheless remains ambiguous, particularly relating to the legality behind the principle within the context of contemporary international life. The development of the principle was initially intended on overcoming the human rights impact colonialism had on those subjected to its authority in addition to the impact of decolonisation and post-colonialism had to international stability, economic relations and security as clearly stated in General Assembly Resolution 1514.[1] What is the relationship or distinction between State and Government and does the state itself possess the qualifications as embodied by the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States if indeed such qualifications epitomise a universal model of statehood and autonomy? This intricacy is further debilitated when entrenched with ideological discourse as a tool to construct hegemonic regimes rather than adhering to the constitutive conditions within international public law. This complexity is undoubtedly exposed with the annexation of Crimea [territory of the Ukraine] by Russian authorities, undermining the regulations of the United Nations Charter[2] and of jus ad bellum or the criteria that determines the legality of warfare and the use of force, along with the prohibitions and the application of self-determination contained by the authority of international law. From the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, to the referendum in Crimea that seemingly found the majority of the population in favour of becoming subjects of Russia, to the eventual deployment of Russian military personnel and annexation of the region with the intent of protecting its subjects from pro-Ukrainian extremists, is there a breach of Russia’ international obligations or is there credibility that can be considered legally tenable? It is the intention of this blog post on this gorgeous albeit cold Sunday afternoon to focus on the situation in Crimea by ascertaining Russia’ legal obligations regarding territorial integrity along with use of force, utilising a comparative approach on Kosovo and the Former Yugoslavia to ascertain the meaning of self-determination in international public law.

Many well-qualified observers of the Bosnia wars were appalled at the biased reporting and gullibility of mainstream journalists.

The successful demonization of the Serbs, making them largely responsible for the Yugoslav wars, and as unique and genocidal killers, was one of the great propaganda triumphs of our era. It was done so quickly, with such uniformity and uncritical zeal in the mainstream Western media, that disinformation had (and still has, after almost two decades) a field day.

Mostar’s Ottoman-era bridge damaged by Croatian forces’ shelling

The demonization flowed from the gullibility of Western interests and media (and intellectuals). With Yugoslavia no longer useful as an ally after the fall of the Soviet Union, and actually an obstacle as an independent state with a still social democratic bent, the NATO powers aimed at its dismantlement, and they actively supported the secession of Slovenia, Croatia…